Hacker News Reader

Comment by cannonedhamster | Hacker News Reader

This article is written by a crusader for meat with a clear agenda of being vehemently pro-meat.

She supports the keto-diet, which has no real basis in history or science, the person she cites actively disagrees with her dietary suggestions. She cites inflammation and healing as side effects, but doesn't describe what gets inflamed, where it gets inflamed, or how.

She also makes a claim that vegans and vegetarianism will lead to mental disorder because of this lower DHA claim. Well where's the data that vegans/vegetarians have higher instances of this? Should be easy to produce right?

She even makes the claim that vegetables have no science to prove that they are healthy.

How did this even get onto HN, it's obviously garbage?

Sources:

http://www.2ketodudes.com/show.aspx?episode=156

https://www.judytsafrirmd.com/myth-buster/

https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/

View on HN

I think the developmental aspects of the argument regarding DHA are interesting.

Aside from that, even if the article is wrong about one thing, it doesn't mean it's wrong about everything.

The search results surrounding some of the topics this article touches on do show heavy pro-meat biases. But even with an agenda, it doesn't make all of the information garbage.

If meat industry pundits are extremists, vegans are similar in their fanaticism, even if tactics differ. Ultimately, the fighting itself is tiresome.

Humans are omnivores, and it's never going to go all one way.

When cost is used as a proxy for ease of supply, essential nutrients are most readily sourced from a menu that is neither one nor the other option, but really well-rounded and omnivorous.

Unfortunately, that means extremists on both sides have partially valid arguments.

The article is wrong about almost everything. As for extremists, absolutely agree, but this is someone who is making claims not backed up by the science she claims exists. She makes the claim that DHA is required for proper brain growth. It's demonstrably incorrect. The author of this article, despite having a very nice degree and a background in the field purposefully misrepresents the science. She's willfully spreading misinformation to further her viewpoint.

Yes humans are omnivores, no one, including myself said otherwise. I'm not sure where you're getting that from what I said in the comment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728620/ "Most data from human studies concern the contribution of DHA to optimal visual acuity development. Accumulating data indicate that DHA may have effects on the brain in infancy"

> She makes the claim that DHA is required for proper brain growth. It's demonstrably incorrect.

There is considerable peer-reviewed research going back at least a couple of decades that would back up this claim, even if it has been elusive to demonstrate. It's widely accepted that DHA heavily accumulates in the brain during early life, infants require a large amount 'pre-formed', and insufficient supply is detrimental to cognitive and visual development. A quick pub med search will illustrate this rather quickly. The findings are so significant that most infant formula now contains DHA and ARA, in addition to LA and ALA. Even if mom does not consume animal meat, she still converts ALA into DHA and passes this on to her offspring during the third trimester and after birth through milk.

At this point in my observation of the diet wars I have concluded that no diet is based in science and everyone is wrong. Like religion.

I think this is a pretty fair assessment as human nutrition needs can vary wildly based on a variety of factors. Some people obviously have nutritional deficiencies that are best addressed by eating meat. Most people need to eat more veggies. I think the omnivore's dilemma comes closest to a solid diet for humans.

In fact we have a lot of very solid science on nutrition. It's just that some companies with billions of dollars to lose are doing their best to confuse the issue and get everyone to give up, just as you have. It's straight out of big tobacco's playbook.

Yup. Have you also observed that the HN community has a vegan/vegetarian-bias?

People here jump to prompt criticism and ad hominem when there is a pro-meat submission. And right now that Burger King vegan burger loaded with questionable ingredients is being lauded as the greatest achievement in nutrition.

I dunno about the Vegan BK Whopper. But when apples cost > $1 each, head of cauliflower is $4.99, and yet you can buy chicken, cuts of beef, for the same price or less, something is up. That animal, raised, fed, given medical care, housed for some years. Seems like a lot of built in cost compared to seasonal produce. Either the government is subsidizing it up the wazoo and/or the meat industry in the US is King Kong size. Since it was mentioned, the same goes for the meat in the dollar menu. Ewww.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com